TransManche Metro - rolling stock

[m***@yahoo.co.uk]

After the delivery of the new Thameslink rolling stock, could a fleet
of cascaded class 319 EMUs become dedicated for the TransManche Metro
between Kent and Nord-pas-de-Calais?

I understand that the ceremonial workings through the Channel Tunnel
after competition with 319008/009 in 1993 were modified with extended
pantographs to meet the Eurotunnel catenary height and also worked
under possession due to not being equipped with TVM430.

Pros;

- dual voltage between former SR 750V DC third rail and 25kv AC
overhead catenary, so can operate on classic lines in GB and thus not
confined to HS1. In regards to the pantograph height differential as
per the ceremonial 319s - if the trains would operate predominately in
Kent only with the 25kv AC option being used excelusively for the
Channel Tunnel and France, the pantograph could be fixed to ET cantery
height with no regard to the GB height, I don't know how this would
compare with French catenary height.

- retention toilets, so they won't crap all over the Tunnel.

- frontal cab evacuation doors.

Cons;

- no TVM430 or KVB.

- no fire doors, however they could probably be retrofitted by the
removal of the existing the hinged doors with sliding doors, as per
the Railcare 317/7 refurbishment for the Stansted Express (http://
www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb/...d_Express5.jpg).

- platform height differential between GB/F/ET standards.

- no pressure sealing, 319s have hopper windows - so there would
possibly be some clashes with atmospherics when inside the CT.

All of these technicalities can also be applied to the 375/377 fleet
if they were ever to be proposed for use, too.

[Bruce]

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
After the delivery of the new Thameslink rolling stock, could a fleet
of cascaded class 319 EMUs become dedicated for the TransManche Metro
between Kent and Nord-pas-de-Calais?

No. Don't be silly.

[m***@yahoo.co.uk]

No.  Don't be silly.

Piss off and die, just like your mother, you prick.

I only asked a sensible question.

[Andy Elms]

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

No.  Don't be silly.

I only asked a sensible question.

FSVO sensible.

Never thought I'd agree with Polson, but I think he has a point...

Andy

[Charles Ellson]

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

No.  Don't be silly.

Piss off and die, just like your mother, you prick.
I only asked a sensible question.

Not something that could be said of your "supplementary".

[Bruce]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

No.  Don't be silly.

Piss off and die, just like your mother, you prick.
I only asked a sensible question.

Not something that could be said of your "supplementary".

Charming, wasn't it.

Rewarded with an instant elevation to the kill file. ;-)

[D7666]

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

No.  Don't be silly.

I only asked a sensible question.

Well I would say it was a valid question but not a sensible one.

It is way way more complex than simply picking a train type that fits
the 2 required voltages. That is what trainspotters do ... look of
some gen in an ABC spotting book.

A little bit of research in this forum alone would have yielded all
the reasons why a 319 (or a 313 and even 377 etc) are somewhat more
than completely unsuitable for channel tunnel operation. (None of them
in their existing forms are suitable for HS1 either for that matter.)

--
Nick

[Bevan Price]

Post by Bruce

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
After the delivery of the new Thameslink rolling stock, could a fleet
of cascaded class 319 EMUs become dedicated for the TransManche Metro
between Kent and Nord-pas-de-Calais?

No. Don't be silly.

The title "Metro" implies a high frequency service (at least every 10 to
15 minutes), with high passenger loadings for much of the day. So -
where do you get the passengers for your metro service ? How many people
from Kent work, or shop regularly in the area around Calais ? How many
people from the Calais area work, or shop regularly in Kent ?

Not many. So, no point in having a Metro service (even if there was
enough line capacity & suitable trains were available.)

Bevan

[Ian]

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Bruce

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
After the delivery of the new Thameslink rolling stock, could a fleet
of cascaded class 319 EMUs become dedicated for the TransManche Metro
between Kent and Nord-pas-de-Calais?

No. Don't be silly.

The title "Metro" implies a high frequency service (at least every 10 to
15 minutes), with high passenger loadings for much of the day. So - where
do you get the passengers for your metro service ? How many people from
Kent work, or shop regularly in the area around Calais ? How many people
from the Calais area work, or shop regularly in Kent ?
Not many. So, no point in having a Metro service (even if there was enough
line capacity & suitable trains were available.)
Bevan

But wouldn't a "Metro" be a very efficient means of transport for
Latvians,Poles,Romanians, and all the other flotsam and jetsam of Eastern
Europe that wants to move to UK to live?

[D1039]

On Jan 13, 8:41 pm, "Ian" <***@henden.co.uk> wrote:

(snip)

Post by Ian
all the other flotsam and jetsam of Eastern
Europe that wants to move to UK to live>

Hardly - a more apt generalisation would be people with a very
positive work ethic who want to travel to the UK to work, who pay
taxes, then (mostly) go home.

“It is not only an issue of migrants accepting the dirty, difficult
and dangerous jobs that the UK labour force shuns but also a matter of
the very positive work ethic amongst A8 workers.” ONS -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8782230/Eastern-Europeans-still-came-to-Britain-for-work-despite-recession.html

Patrick


Patrick

[Alex Macfie]

Post by Bevan Price
The title "Metro" implies a high frequency service (at least every 10 to
15 minutes), with high passenger loadings for much of the day. So -
where do you get the passengers for your metro service ? How many people
from Kent work, or shop regularly in the area around Calais ? How many
people from the Calais area work, or shop regularly in Kent ?
Not many. So, no point in having a Metro service (even if there was
enough line capacity & suitable trains were available.)

There is enough line capacity: the Channel Tunnel is running to 52-57%
of available capacity, depending on which report you are reading. And
there do seem to be suitable trains, in the form of ex-Eurostar sets
currently running domestic services in France. (NOT sets cascaded from
UK commuter train services!)

Are you sure the demand for a TransManche "Metro" service is that
limited? If there aren't many people travelling regularly between Kent
and Calais (actually I'm not so sure about that), surely one reason is
that it isn't very easy to make that sort of journey without a car.
You can't travel between A and B when the service doesn't exist for
it. To a large extent a rail service *creates* the demand. I agree
that "Metro" may be a misnomer since what is envisaged is really a
longer-distance commuter service, maybe every half-hour rather than
every 10 minutes, but still clockface-timetabled and a 'walk-up, buy a
ticket and hop on' service.

But whatever you want to call it, the TransManche Metro seems to be a
service that logically *ought* to exist. On the face of it, it seems
crazy that we can travel by train between London and Paris, but not
between Ashford and Calais. It seems just as crazy that Kent residents
can hop on a high-speed train to London, but not one going in the
other direction. Ditto for Calais residents who can travel quickly to
Paris by train but not to Kent or London. The two reasons why it's not
likely to happen any time soon are:
-- Border security, with the insistence on airport-style check-in and
international trains having to run 'sealed' in the UK; there is a
perception that making it too easy to travel across the border by
train would let all sorts of riff-raff into the UK. I know that one
contributor to this group has strong opinions on this matter.
-- Tunnel access fees, which are set so high as to make any metro-type
passenger service likely unviable.

Alex

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Alex Macfie

Post by Bevan Price
The title "Metro" implies a high frequency service (at least every 10 to
15 minutes), with high passenger loadings for much of the day. So -
where do you get the passengers for your metro service ? How many people
from Kent work, or shop regularly in the area around Calais ? How many
people from the Calais area work, or shop regularly in Kent ?
Not many. So, no point in having a Metro service (even if there was
enough line capacity& suitable trains were available.)

There is enough line capacity: the Channel Tunnel is running to 52-57%
of available capacity, depending on which report you are reading. And
there do seem to be suitable trains, in the form of ex-Eurostar sets
currently running domestic services in France. (NOT sets cascaded from
UK commuter train services!)

I thought NS and DB were looking to use the Channel Tunnel, respectively
offering services from Amsterdam and Köln.

The question that comes to my mind, however, is if there is enough
capacity at St. Pancras International to handle the additional
prospective traffic.

[Recliner]

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Alex Macfie

Post by Bevan Price
The title "Metro" implies a high frequency service (at least every
10 to 15 minutes), with high passenger loadings for much of the
day. So - where do you get the passengers for your metro service ?
How many people from Kent work, or shop regularly in the area
around Calais ? How many people from the Calais area work, or shop
regularly in Kent ? Not many. So, no point in having a Metro service
(even if there was
enough line capacity& suitable trains were available.)

There is enough line capacity: the Channel Tunnel is running to
52-57% of available capacity, depending on which report you are
reading. And there do seem to be suitable trains, in the form of
ex-Eurostar sets currently running domestic services in France. (NOT
sets cascaded from UK commuter train services!)

I thought NS and DB were looking to use the Channel Tunnel,
respectively offering services from Amsterdam and Köln.
The question that comes to my mind, however, is if there is enough
capacity at St. Pancras International to handle the additional
prospective traffic.

No, it's DB that plans to offer services from both Amsterdam and Köln,
but the start date has been postponed to 2015, as Siemens seems to be
having problems getting the 200m Class 407 Velaro D trains certified for
international use.

Eurostar also has similar plans to serve bothe cities (and others?), and
its 400m Velaro e320 trains are apparently on schedule for a 2014 start
to the service. In neither case is there likely to be a particularly
frequent service, so there should be ample capacity at St P (whose six
international platforms are not exactly overloaded by the current 1.5
tph).

[Lüko Willms]

Post by Recliner
No, it's DB that plans to offer services from both Amsterdam and Köln,
but the start date has been postponed to 2015, as Siemens seems to be
having problems getting the 200m Class 407 Velaro D trains certified for
international use.

and for double unit working with the older class 403 and 406.


Cheers,
L.W.

[m***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Charles Ellson
Not something that could be said of your "supplementary".

I have the right to ask a question without receiving an arrogant
response, instead of replying in the tone that he did, he could of at
least have gave a response as to why 319s cannot be used through the
CT - as per other replies - or at least just a simple “it's not
possible“ - but no I got an arrogant reply and I uphold my comment
that Bruce is a prick. I bet he wouldn't of said that to my face in
person - in this instance he's tucked up safe and sound behind a
computer screen, weakling. Bollocks to him.

I cannot see why ever potential railway project has to be doubted with
rose-tinted negativity from those who just like to say no to
everything, it's like fucking Greenpeace on this group. I once put
forward a suggestion to a HS1 Ltd technical employee about running
freights from Hoo Junction (North Kent Line) via Ebbsfleet and HS1 to
Ripple Lane and the GOBLIN/NLL to relieve congestion and save paths on
the present classic route via South London and the West London Line,
the response was it is physically and operationally possible and if
the business case ever arises it could be done. If I asked the same on
here I would probably be shot down in flames for using common sense.
Again, it's wonderful what you can say when you hide behind a
computer screen...

It's the same in other countries, in Belgium when LGV2 opened people
we're certain that SNCB would never be able to run domestic Intercity
trains on the infrastructure - it was to be a physically, politically
and financially impossible challenge, now there are hourly IC-A
services between Oostende and Eupen operating on it.

It is a shame that we can't have a cross-channel regional service,
such as a service that mimics that of the Euregiobahn between Germany
and The Netherlands, at least the ERA are trying to weaken the IGC
rules;
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/era-recommends-changes-to-channel-tunnel-safety-regime.html

Post by Charles Ellson
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV in Nord-
pas-de-Calais, I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

Post by Charles Ellson
If it does get too busy, they can always shunt a few trains off to
Stratford depot.

My contacts at Eurostar inform me that the only reason the spare
capacity at Temple Mills is currently used by Southeastern is as a
counterattack to keep DB (or any other potential operators) out of the
premises. I would imagine that ES are using the same tactic by
stabling trains overnight in St Pancras purely to make operations
difficult for any future competition.

[Alex Macfie]

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Arthur Figgis
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV in Nord-
pas-de-Calais,

Surely this would make it relatively easy to use them for a cross-
channel service. If Chunnel-ready trains are running domestic French
services to Calais, it should be quite simple to extend them to
Ashford and beyond. It is surely easier to modify/extend an existing
service than create a brand new one.

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

It's "could have".

Alex

[MatSav]

Post by Alex Macfie

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Arthur Figgis
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV
in Nord-
pas-de-Calais,

Surely this would make it relatively easy to use them for a
cross-
channel service. If Chunnel-ready trains are running domestic
French
services to Calais, it should be quite simple to extend them to
Ashford and beyond. It is surely easier to modify/extend an
existing
service than create a brand new one.

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

It's "could have".

Or even "could've". However, language moves on. Perhaps "could
of" is in such common use that it's an accepted term? The meaning
was understood - it must've (must of? - sic!) been so, to express
the idea that a correction was necessary.

I can think of three similar examples:

"They were arguing, but then helped one another". "... one
another"? Does that make sense, if it is analysed? No. It
probably started as "...one and other", or "one and another", but
"one another" is the accepted written form.

"There was a snake in the grass - it was an adder". This used to
be "... a nadder", but the 'n' got moved.

Lastly, there's a difference between British English, and
American English, for the phrase "I couldn't care less". In the
USA, this is expressed as "I could care less". Perhaps that's the
attitude we should all take when dealing with spelling and
grammar on Usenet.

[Roland Perry]

Post by MatSav
Lastly, there's a difference between British English, and
American English, for the phrase "I couldn't care less". In the
USA, this is expressed as "I could care less".

Another opposite is when answering the phone, and the person the other
end not saying their name. In the UK we'd say "Who is that?", in the USA
"Who is this?".

[Neil Williams]

Post by MatSav
Lastly, there's a difference between British English, and
American English, for the phrase "I couldn't care less". In the
USA, this is expressed as "I could care less".

I've never understood that, because it makes no sense.

No worse than double-negatives, though.

Neil

[Bruce]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by MatSav
Lastly, there's a difference between British English, and
American English, for the phrase "I couldn't care less". In the
USA, this is expressed as "I could care less".

I've never understood that, because it makes no sense.

It is sarcastic. Taken literally, without the sarcasm, it makes no
sense at all.

Irony is difficult to communicate solely via the written word. ;-)

[Neil Williams]

It is sarcastic.  Taken literally, without the sarcasm, it makes no
sense at all.
Irony is difficult to communicate solely via the written word.  ;-)

And is not traditionally something Americans are good at...you'd
almost expect the origin of the two versions to be the other way
round.

Neil

[Bruce]

Post by Neil Williams

It is sarcastic.  Taken literally, without the sarcasm, it makes no
sense at all.
Irony is difficult to communicate solely via the written word.  ;-)

And is not traditionally something Americans are good at...you'd
almost expect the origin of the two versions to be the other way
round.

I couldn't possibly comment. :-)

[Bruce]

Post by MatSav

Post by Alex Macfie

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

It's "could have".

Or even "could've". However, language moves on. Perhaps "could
of" is in such common use that it's an accepted term?

The more people who get it wrong ... the more right it becomes, innit?

Post by MatSav
Lastly, there's a difference between British English, and
American English, for the phrase "I couldn't care less". In the
USA, this is expressed as "I could care less".

But with sarcasm. The US expression does not work in the absence of
sarcasm. Clearly, detecting irony is not your strong point.

[Lüko Willms]

Post by Bruce

Post by MatSav
is in such common use that it's an accepted term?

The more people who get it wrong ... the more right it becomes, innit?

That's how spoken languages evolve.


Cheers,
L.W.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:20:33 -0000, MatSav put finger to keyboard and

Post by MatSav

Post by Alex Macfie

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Arthur Figgis
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV
in Nord-
pas-de-Calais,

Surely this would make it relatively easy to use them for a
cross-
channel service. If Chunnel-ready trains are running domestic
French
services to Calais, it should be quite simple to extend them to
Ashford and beyond. It is surely easier to modify/extend an
existing
service than create a brand new one.

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

It's "could have".

Or even "could've". However, language moves on. Perhaps "could
of" is in such common use that it's an accepted term? The meaning
was understood - it must've (must of? - sic!) been so, to express
the idea that a correction was necessary.

The point here is that nobody actually says "could of". They say
"could've", and merely misspell it while writing.

Post by MatSav
"They were arguing, but then helped one another". "... one
another"? Does that make sense, if it is analysed? No. It
probably started as "...one and other", or "one and another", but
"one another" is the accepted written form.

"One another" is a contraction of "one and other". It's lost the "d" and
the spaces. That's an equivalent construction to "could've", which has also
lost some letters and a space.

Post by MatSav
"There was a snake in the grass - it was an adder". This used to
be "... a nadder", but the 'n' got moved.

That's partly true. The English word comes from the German "natter", which
was anglicised as "an adder", shifting the "n" in the process. It was never
"a nadder" in English. But it's still just a shift of letters, not the
replacement of one word by a different one. So, again, it's equivalent to
"one another" and "could've" rather than "could of".

Post by MatSav
Lastly, there's a difference between British English, and
American English, for the phrase "I couldn't care less". In the
USA, this is expressed as "I could care less". Perhaps that's the
attitude we should all take when dealing with spelling and
grammar on Usenet.

The American usage is just plain wrong here. If the point is to imply that
your amount of concern is as low as it can be, then making a statement
which says that it could be lower is clearly inappropriate. I'm pretty
sure, actually, that this is an American version of "could of" - because
the second syllable in "couldn't" is unstressed, people who don't speak
clearly, or don't think clearly when they write, have simply dropped it
without realising that in doing so they're changing the meaning of the
phrase do be the opposite of what they intend it to mean.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <***@news.markshouse.net>, at
09:53:32 on Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Mark Goodge

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by MatSav
Lastly, there's a difference between British English, and
American English, for the phrase "I couldn't care less". In the
USA, this is expressed as "I could care less". Perhaps that's the
attitude we should all take when dealing with spelling and
grammar on Usenet.

The American usage is just plain wrong here. If the point is to imply that
your amount of concern is as low as it can be, then making a statement
which says that it could be lower is clearly inappropriate. I'm pretty
sure, actually, that this is an American version of "could of" - because
the second syllable in "couldn't" is unstressed, people who don't speak
clearly, or don't think clearly when they write, have simply dropped it
without realising that in doing so they're changing the meaning of the
phrase do be the opposite of what they intend it to mean.

It's an abbreviation of "[as if] I could care less". In other words,
"it's very unlikely I'd be able to care less". But the usage is clearly
controversial, especially amongst Brits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2010/may/20/language-usa

("Caring less" crops up a minute into the programme).

[Chris Tolley]

Perhaps "could of" is in such common use that it's an accepted term?

It's not a "term" because it is meaningless as written. It's just bad (as
in lazy, rather than naughty) spelling.

[Peter Masson]

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
forward a suggestion to a HS1 Ltd technical employee about running
freights from Hoo Junction (North Kent Line) via Ebbsfleet and HS1 to
Ripple Lane and the GOBLIN/NLL to relieve congestion and save paths on
the present classic route via South London and the West London Line,
the response was it is physically and operationally possible and if
the business case ever arises it could be done.

This seems very sensible, though it will need quite a bit of investment to
make it work. Particularly electrification of Goblin. The problem seems to
be that there's no business case for LO to sponsor electrification, nor for
the freight businesses to do so, but I suspect that taking passengers and
freight together the case could be made. As it is a train from Thamesport to
the WCML would have to change traction at Hoo Junction, Ripple Lane (because
you'd need electric traction to cope with HS1, especially the gradient out
of the Thames Tunnel) and Wuillesden Junction/Wembley. Ideally the Grain
branch would be electrified, so a 92 could run at least from Thamesport to
Daventry.

Peter

[bob]

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Charles Ellson
Not something that could be said of your "supplementary".

I have the right to ask a question without receiving an arrogant
response, instead of replying in the tone that he did, he could of at
least have gave a response as to why 319s cannot be used through the
CT - as per other replies - or at least just a simple “it's not
possible“ - but no I got an arrogant reply and I uphold my comment
that Bruce is a prick. I bet he wouldn't of said that to my face in
person - in this instance he's tucked up safe and sound behind a
computer screen, weakling. Bollocks to him.

There is a certain element on uk.railway that takes a very negative
approach to all sorts of issues like this. It is not a new phenomenon
nor is it shared by all posters. A classic example is the issue of
changing the IGC safety regulations for what rolling stock is
permissible through the channel tunnel. There were very loud voices
telling us for a long time that a 200m ICE3 type train would never and
could never operate through the tunnel because the IGC would never and
could never change its rules to allow different something different to
run. In the event, DB have built their Cologne/Amsterdam proposal on
running exactly such stock, and seem to have the approval of the
relevant authorities.

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
I cannot see why ever potential railway project has to be doubted with
rose-tinted negativity from those who just like to say no to
everything, it's like fucking Greenpeace on this group. I once put
forward a suggestion to a HS1 Ltd technical employee about running
freights from Hoo Junction (North Kent Line) via Ebbsfleet and HS1 to
Ripple Lane and the GOBLIN/NLL to relieve congestion and save paths on
the present classic route via South London and the West London Line,
the response was it is physically and operationally possible and if
the business case ever arises it could be done. If I asked the same on
here I would probably be shot down in flames for using common sense.
Again, it's wonderful what you can say when you hide behind a
computer screen...

I believe that some subset of the 92s now have the relevant capability/
approval to run on HS1, which would allow them to run such a service.
No doubt pathing a freight on the line has the potential to cause
difficulties due to speed differential, but I doubt it's
insurmountable.

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
It is a shame that we can't have a cross-channel regional service,
such as a service that mimics that of the Euregiobahn between Germany
and The Netherlands, at least the ERA are trying to weaken the IGC
rules;http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/era-recommends...

I have beleived for a long time that some sort of "local" service
through the tunnel would be a fine and wonderful thing. I would think
one useful service would be a "commuter" friendly St Pancras -
Stratford - Ebbsfleet - Calais Frethun - Lille Europe service
(essentially an extension of the SouthEastern highspeed service idea
from Ashford to Lille), and another useful service would be some sort
of East Kent - Ashford - Calais Frethun - Nord Pas de Calias local
service.

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Charles Ellson
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV in Nord-
pas-de-Calais, I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

They have the benefit that 3rd rail equipment can probably be restored
to them without too much difficulty, and that they are built to be
able to serve both UK and UIC platforms, so that they are capable of
wandering off the high speed lines at both ends. I wonder if a DVT
type vehicle could be used with a Eurostar half-set (either full size
or NoL) for local services where a full set might be overkill. No
doubt the "it's impossible" brigade will tell me that would never be
allowed through the tunnel.

Robin

[Roland Perry]

In message

Post by bob

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Arthur Figgis
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV in Nord-
pas-de-Calais, I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

They have the benefit that 3rd rail equipment can probably be restored
to them without too much difficulty, and that they are built to be
able to serve both UK and UIC platforms, so that they are capable of
wandering off the high speed lines at both ends.

I was under the impression they could only "wander" onto specially
prepared 3rd-rail lines. Have the ones from Waterloo to Ashford been
decommissioned?

It's also possible that the rack space in the locos set aside for the
3rd-rail equipment has been re-used for something else.

[bob]

Post by Roland Perry
In message

Post by bob

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Arthur Figgis
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV in Nord-
pas-de-Calais, I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

They have the benefit that 3rd rail equipment can probably be restored
to them without too much difficulty, and that they are built to be
able to serve both UK and UIC platforms, so that they are capable of
wandering off the high speed lines at both ends.

I was under the impression they could only "wander" onto specially
prepared 3rd-rail lines. Have the ones from Waterloo to Ashford been
decommissioned?

I understand this was a power issue, that the current they would need
to draw to run at 100mph on 3rd rail was greater than the normal
supply would allow. If they are pottering about East Kent at
signifciantly less than this, it may well be that the issue goes away.

Post by Roland Perry
It's also possible that the rack space in the locos set aside for the
3rd-rail equipment has been re-used for something else.

The capabilities of the sets haven't been increased since the removal
of the 3rd rail gear in terms of signalling equipment and power supply
equipment, so if it was possible to fit it all in before, it should be
possible to get it all in again.

Robin

Robin

[Roland Perry]

In message

Post by bob

Post by Roland Perry

Post by bob

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Arthur Figgis
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV in Nord-
pas-de-Calais, I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

They have the benefit that 3rd rail equipment can probably be restored
to them without too much difficulty, and that they are built to be
able to serve both UK and UIC platforms, so that they are capable of
wandering off the high speed lines at both ends.

I was under the impression they could only "wander" onto specially
prepared 3rd-rail lines. Have the ones from Waterloo to Ashford been
decommissioned?

I understand this was a power issue, that the current they would need
to draw to run at 100mph on 3rd rail was greater than the normal
supply would allow. If they are pottering about East Kent at
signifciantly less than this, it may well be that the issue goes away.

Isn't there an issue of immunity for signalling/track circuits too?

Post by bob

Post by Roland Perry
It's also possible that the rack space in the locos set aside for the
3rd-rail equipment has been re-used for something else.

The capabilities of the sets haven't been increased since the removal
of the 3rd rail gear in terms of signalling equipment and power supply
equipment, so if it was possible to fit it all in before, it should be
possible to get it all in again.

Where did the equipment go - was it scrapped?

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Roland Perry
In message

Post by bob

Post by Roland Perry

Post by bob

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Arthur Figgis
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV in Nord-
pas-de-Calais, I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

They have the benefit that 3rd rail equipment can probably be restored
to them without too much difficulty, and that they are built to be
able to serve both UK and UIC platforms, so that they are capable of
wandering off the high speed lines at both ends.

I was under the impression they could only "wander" onto specially
prepared 3rd-rail lines. Have the ones from Waterloo to Ashford been
decommissioned?

I understand this was a power issue, that the current they would need
to draw to run at 100mph on 3rd rail was greater than the normal
supply would allow. If they are pottering about East Kent at
signifciantly less than this, it may well be that the issue goes away.

Isn't there an issue of immunity for signalling/track circuits too?

Post by bob

Post by Roland Perry
It's also possible that the rack space in the locos set aside for the
3rd-rail equipment has been re-used for something else.

The capabilities of the sets haven't been increased since the removal
of the 3rd rail gear in terms of signalling equipment and power supply
equipment, so if it was possible to fit it all in before, it should be
possible to get it all in again.

Where did the equipment go - was it scrapped?

I would imagine that they would want to keep a few around in the event
that they ever resume service out of Waterloo, either out of necessity
or a desire to introduce some sort of limited service from there.

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by bob

Post by Roland Perry
In message

Post by bob

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Arthur Figgis
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV in Nord-
pas-de-Calais, I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

They have the benefit that 3rd rail equipment can probably be restored
to them without too much difficulty, and that they are built to be
able to serve both UK and UIC platforms, so that they are capable of
wandering off the high speed lines at both ends.

I was under the impression they could only "wander" onto specially
prepared 3rd-rail lines. Have the ones from Waterloo to Ashford been
decommissioned?

I understand this was a power issue, that the current they would need
to draw to run at 100mph on 3rd rail was greater than the normal
supply would allow. If they are pottering about East Kent at
signifciantly less than this, it may well be that the issue goes away.

Post by Roland Perry
It's also possible that the rack space in the locos set aside for the
3rd-rail equipment has been re-used for something else.

The capabilities of the sets haven't been increased since the removal
of the 3rd rail gear in terms of signalling equipment and power supply
equipment, so if it was possible to fit it all in before, it should be
possible to get it all in again.
Robin
Robin

What about some sort of an EMU-class train, to traverse the tunnel,
rather than a high-speed train? Does anything exist in either the UK or
French fleets that could do that?

I would also think that these supposed EMUs would only need to achieve
high speeds of about 100 miles between Ashford and the portal. Or is
that actually too slow for that section?

There are then speed restrictions within CT itself, after which
Calais-Frethun is practically by the French-side portal. This would not
require high speeds, and the section between Frethun and Calais-Gare de
Ville would also not require high-speeds.

[Andy Elms]

 I wonder if a DVT
type vehicle could be used with a Eurostar half-set (either full size
or NoL) for local services where a full set might be overkill.

I've sometimes wondered if you could hitch a Class 92 to a NoL half
set and be able to get them to talk to each other. You'd certainly
have the right kind of power to weight ratio for "Metro"-type services

Andy

[Denis McMahon]

Post by bob
I believe that some subset of the 92s now have the relevant capability/
approval to run on HS1, which would allow them to run such a service. No
doubt pathing a freight on the line has the potential to cause
difficulties due to speed differential, but I doubt it's insurmountable.

I imagine that freight will run in convoys on a single track whilst the
other track is in engineering possession at night, one of the benefits of
the signalling being fully bi-directional.

eg 3 or 4 freights from dollands moor up to the east london yard in a
convoy, then a convoy in the return direction. Or vice versa, depending
on whether you wanted the locos at dollands more or east london.

Post by bob
I have beleived for a long time that some sort of "local" service
through the tunnel would be a fine and wonderful thing. I would think
one useful service would be a "commuter" friendly St Pancras - Stratford
- Ebbsfleet - Calais Frethun - Lille Europe service (essentially an
extension of the SouthEastern highspeed service idea from Ashford to
Lille), and another useful service would be some sort of East Kent -
Ashford - Calais Frethun - Nord Pas de Calias local service.

I imagine that 4 or even 3 NoL sets could manage 1tph each way passenger
shuttle between Ashford and Calais-Frethun, or even Calais main. It would
be a 35-40 minute trip, maybe 45-50 for Calais main. I would have thought
it worthwhile running for 6 months to see if pax numbers are there,
ferries are not particularly accomodating to foot passengers after all.
However, it might be cheaper if somewhat slower to run a double decker
coach service over the shuttle service?

Part of the problem is that until you try such a service out and see how
many people turn up, you have no idea how much demand there will be for
the service.

Rgds

Denis McMahon

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Denis McMahon
I imagine that 4 or even 3 NoL sets could manage 1tph each way passenger
shuttle between Ashford and Calais-Frethun, or even Calais main. It would
be a 35-40 minute trip, maybe 45-50 for Calais main. I would have thought
it worthwhile running for 6 months to see if pax numbers are there,
ferries are not particularly accomodating to foot passengers after all.
However, it might be cheaper if somewhat slower to run a double decker
coach service over the shuttle service?
Part of the problem is that until you try such a service out and see how
many people turn up, you have no idea how much demand there will be for
the service.

The coach idea was tried in the past and didn't prove economic.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Denis McMahon
I imagine that 4 or even 3 NoL sets could manage 1tph each way passenger
shuttle between Ashford and Calais-Frethun, or even Calais main. It would
be a 35-40 minute trip, maybe 45-50 for Calais main. I would have thought
it worthwhile running for 6 months to see if pax numbers are there,
ferries are not particularly accomodating to foot passengers after all.
However, it might be cheaper if somewhat slower to run a double decker
coach service over the shuttle service?
Part of the problem is that until you try such a service out and see how
many people turn up, you have no idea how much demand there will be for
the service.

The coach idea was tried in the past and didn't prove economic.

Because the only people who knew it existed were the sort of people who
travel on FIP boxes?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Denis McMahon
I imagine that 4 or even 3 NoL sets could manage 1tph each way passenger
shuttle between Ashford and Calais-Frethun, or even Calais main. It would
be a 35-40 minute trip, maybe 45-50 for Calais main. I would have thought
it worthwhile running for 6 months to see if pax numbers are there,
ferries are not particularly accomodating to foot passengers after all.
However, it might be cheaper if somewhat slower to run a double decker
coach service over the shuttle service?
Part of the problem is that until you try such a service out and see how
many people turn up, you have no idea how much demand there will be for
the service.

The coach idea was tried in the past and didn't prove economic.

Because the only people who knew it existed were the sort of people who
travel on FIP boxes?

Well I knew it existed and I don't travel on FIP boxes. I think the
operators failed to a) advertise it properly and b) negotiate a decent
discount for regular travel.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Denis McMahon
I imagine that 4 or even 3 NoL sets could manage 1tph each way passenger
shuttle between Ashford and Calais-Frethun, or even Calais main. It would
be a 35-40 minute trip, maybe 45-50 for Calais main. I would have thought
it worthwhile running for 6 months to see if pax numbers are there,
ferries are not particularly accomodating to foot passengers after all.
However, it might be cheaper if somewhat slower to run a double decker
coach service over the shuttle service?
Part of the problem is that until you try such a service out and see how
many people turn up, you have no idea how much demand there will be for
the service.

The coach idea was tried in the past and didn't prove economic.

Because the only people who knew it existed were the sort of people who
travel on FIP boxes?

Well I knew it existed and I don't travel on FIP boxes.

Neither do I. But I was told about it by.... :)

[Graham Murray]

Post by Denis McMahon
I imagine that 4 or even 3 NoL sets could manage 1tph each way passenger
shuttle between Ashford and Calais-Frethun, or even Calais main. It would
be a 35-40 minute trip, maybe 45-50 for Calais main. I would have thought
it worthwhile running for 6 months to see if pax numbers are there,
ferries are not particularly accomodating to foot passengers after all.
However, it might be cheaper if somewhat slower to run a double decker
coach service over the shuttle service?

If it were not for the (almost) impossibility of access to the Folkstone
terminal except by car from the motorway, another alternative might be
to add a seating coach to the Le-Shuttle car sets.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Graham Murray
If it were not for the (almost) impossibility of access to the Folkstone
terminal except by car from the motorway, another alternative might be
to add a seating coach to the Le-Shuttle car sets.

This type of seating coach is probably the most feasible, as it has no
issues accessing Folkestone by road.

Loading Image...

ISTR the problem with the last time this was tried was stated as being
that Eurotunnel wouldn't give it priority on a specific Shuttle,
treating it the same as any other private coach, and as such
timekeeping was unrealistically poor.

Neil

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Denis McMahon

Post by bob
I believe that some subset of the 92s now have the relevant capability/
approval to run on HS1, which would allow them to run such a service. No
doubt pathing a freight on the line has the potential to cause
difficulties due to speed differential, but I doubt it's insurmountable.

I imagine that freight will run in convoys on a single track whilst the
other track is in engineering possession at night, one of the benefits of
the signalling being fully bi-directional.
eg 3 or 4 freights from dollands moor up to the east london yard in a
convoy, then a convoy in the return direction. Or vice versa, depending
on whether you wanted the locos at dollands more or east london.

Post by bob
I have beleived for a long time that some sort of "local" service
through the tunnel would be a fine and wonderful thing. I would think
one useful service would be a "commuter" friendly St Pancras - Stratford
- Ebbsfleet - Calais Frethun - Lille Europe service (essentially an
extension of the SouthEastern highspeed service idea from Ashford to
Lille), and another useful service would be some sort of East Kent -
Ashford - Calais Frethun - Nord Pas de Calias local service.

I imagine that 4 or even 3 NoL sets could manage 1tph each way passenger
shuttle between Ashford and Calais-Frethun, or even Calais main. It would
be a 35-40 minute trip, maybe 45-50 for Calais main. I would have thought
it worthwhile running for 6 months to see if pax numbers are there,
ferries are not particularly accomodating to foot passengers after all.
However, it might be cheaper if somewhat slower to run a double decker
coach service over the shuttle service?
Part of the problem is that until you try such a service out and see how
many people turn up, you have no idea how much demand there will be for
the service.
Rgds
Denis McMahon

It would be possible to do a feasibility study for pilot runs, though,
would it not?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by bob
There is a certain element on uk.railway that takes a very negative
approach to all sorts of issues like this. It is not a new phenomenon
nor is it shared by all posters. A classic example is the issue of
changing the IGC safety regulations for what rolling stock is
permissible through the channel tunnel. There were very loud voices
telling us for a long time that a 200m ICE3 type train would never and
could never operate through the tunnel because the IGC would never and
could never change its rules to allow different something different to
run. In the event, DB have built their Cologne/Amsterdam proposal on
running exactly such stock, and seem to have the approval of the
relevant authorities.

The 'certain element' is usually Tony Polson (aka Bruce) who claims to
have built the Channel Tunnel and is therefore the expert on all things
to do with it.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by bob

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Arthur Figgis
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV in Nord-
pas-de-Calais, I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

They have the benefit that 3rd rail equipment can probably be restored
to them without too much difficulty, and that they are built to be
able to serve both UK and UIC platforms, so that they are capable of
wandering off the high speed lines at both ends.

I seem to remember that over dead bodies was invoked on the subject of
reinstating the third rail equipment on E*s

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by bob

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Arthur Figgis
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV in Nord-
pas-de-Calais, I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

They have the benefit that 3rd rail equipment can probably be restored
to them without too much difficulty, and that they are built to be
able to serve both UK and UIC platforms, so that they are capable of
wandering off the high speed lines at both ends.

I seem to remember that over dead bodies was invoked on the subject of
reinstating the third rail equipment on E*s

Was there not talk at one point of using them for service within the UK?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by bob

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Arthur Figgis
The NoL Eurostars?

They're on lease to SNCF Voyages and heavily used on TER-GV in Nord-
pas-de-Calais, I could of just said “don't be silly“ but I won't -
because I'm nice like that...

They have the benefit that 3rd rail equipment can probably be restored
to them without too much difficulty, and that they are built to be
able to serve both UK and UIC platforms, so that they are capable of
wandering off the high speed lines at both ends.

I seem to remember that over dead bodies was invoked on the subject of
reinstating the third rail equipment on E*s

Was there not talk at one point of using them for service within the UK?

Not on 3rd rail territory. Some E*s were used on the East Coast for a
while but that's 25kV.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Graeme Wall
I seem to remember that over dead bodies was invoked on the subject of
reinstating the third rail equipment on E*s

Was there not talk at one point of using them for service within the UK?

Not on 3rd rail territory. Some E*s were used on the East Coast for a
while but that's 25kV.

And I'm fairly sure they were limited to 110mph, because of pantograph
issues.

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by bob

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Charles Ellson
Not something that could be said of your "supplementary".

I have the right to ask a question without receiving an arrogant
response, instead of replying in the tone that he did, he could of at
least have gave a response as to why 319s cannot be used through the
CT - as per other replies - or at least just a simple “it's not
possible“ - but no I got an arrogant reply and I uphold my comment
that Bruce is a prick. I bet he wouldn't of said that to my face in
person - in this instance he's tucked up safe and sound behind a
computer screen, weakling. Bollocks to him.

There is a certain element on uk.railway that takes a very negative
approach to all sorts of issues like this. It is not a new phenomenon
nor is it shared by all posters. A classic example is the issue of
changing the IGC safety regulations for what rolling stock is
permissible through the channel tunnel. There were very loud voices
telling us for a long time that a 200m ICE3 type train would never and
could never operate through the tunnel because the IGC would never and
could never change its rules to allow different something different to
run. In the event, DB have built their Cologne/Amsterdam proposal on
running exactly such stock, and seem to have the approval of the
relevant authorities.

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
I cannot see why ever potential railway project has to be doubted with
rose-tinted negativity from those who just like to say no to
everything, it's like fucking Greenpeace on this group. I once put
forward a suggestion to a HS1 Ltd technical employee about running
freights from Hoo Junction (North Kent Line) via Ebbsfleet and HS1 to
Ripple Lane and the GOBLIN/NLL to relieve congestion and save paths on
the present classic route via South London and the West London Line,
the response was it is physically and operationally possible and if
the business case ever arises it could be done. If I asked the same on
here I would probably be shot down in flames for using common sense.
Again, it's wonderful what you can say when you hide behind a
computer screen...

I believe that some subset of the 92s now have the relevant capability/
approval to run on HS1, which would allow them to run such a service.
No doubt pathing a freight on the line has the potential to cause
difficulties due to speed differential, but I doubt it's
insurmountable.

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
It is a shame that we can't have a cross-channel regional service,
such as a service that mimics that of the Euregiobahn between Germany
and The Netherlands, at least the ERA are trying to weaken the IGC
rules;http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/era-recommends...

I have beleived for a long time that some sort of "local" service
through the tunnel would be a fine and wonderful thing. I would think
one useful service would be a "commuter" friendly St Pancras -
Stratford - Ebbsfleet - Calais Frethun - Lille Europe service
(essentially an extension of the SouthEastern highspeed service idea
from Ashford to Lille), and another useful service would be some sort
of East Kent - Ashford - Calais Frethun - Nord Pas de Calias local
service.

What about East Kent to Calais-Gare de Ville? The infrastructure exists
for that, too.

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Recliner

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Alex Macfie

Post by Bevan Price
The title "Metro" implies a high frequency service (at least every
10 to 15 minutes), with high passenger loadings for much of the
day. So - where do you get the passengers for your metro service ?
How many people from Kent work, or shop regularly in the area
around Calais ? How many people from the Calais area work, or shop
regularly in Kent ? Not many. So, no point in having a Metro service
(even if there was
enough line capacity& suitable trains were available.)

There is enough line capacity: the Channel Tunnel is running to
52-57% of available capacity, depending on which report you are
reading. And there do seem to be suitable trains, in the form of
ex-Eurostar sets currently running domestic services in France. (NOT
sets cascaded from UK commuter train services!)

I thought NS and DB were looking to use the Channel Tunnel,
respectively offering services from Amsterdam and Köln.
The question that comes to my mind, however, is if there is enough
capacity at St. Pancras International to handle the additional
prospective traffic.

No, it's DB that plans to offer services from both Amsterdam and Köln,
but the start date has been postponed to 2015, as Siemens seems to be
having problems getting the 200m Class 407 Velaro D trains certified for
international use.
Eurostar also has similar plans to serve bothe cities (and others?), and
its 400m Velaro e320 trains are apparently on schedule for a 2014 start
to the service.

Does that have anything to do with the fact that the French are
reportedly f*ed off no end because the actual rolling stock will be
German, and not French?

[Roland Perry]

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
I thought NS and DB were looking to use the Channel Tunnel,
respectively offering services from Amsterdam and Köln.

I think DB is proposing both of those, but it's been delayed.

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
The question that comes to my mind, however, is if there is enough
capacity at St. Pancras International to handle the additional
prospective traffic.

Should be, there are six platforms and I've never seen more than five
trains there at once (usually much fewer, and not the absence of
passengers): Loading Image...

If it does get too busy, they can always shunt a few trains off to
Stratford depot.

[Bevan Price]

Post by Alex Macfie

Post by Bevan Price
The title "Metro" implies a high frequency service (at least every 10 to
15 minutes), with high passenger loadings for much of the day. So -
where do you get the passengers for your metro service ? How many people
from Kent work, or shop regularly in the area around Calais ? How many
people from the Calais area work, or shop regularly in Kent ?
Not many. So, no point in having a Metro service (even if there was
enough line capacity& suitable trains were available.)

There is enough line capacity: the Channel Tunnel is running to 52-57%
of available capacity, depending on which report you are reading. And
there do seem to be suitable trains, in the form of ex-Eurostar sets
currently running domestic services in France. (NOT sets cascaded from
UK commuter train services!)
Are you sure the demand for a TransManche "Metro" service is that
limited? If there aren't many people travelling regularly between Kent
and Calais (actually I'm not so sure about that), surely one reason is
that it isn't very easy to make that sort of journey without a car.
You can't travel between A and B when the service doesn't exist for
it. To a large extent a rail service *creates* the demand. I agree
that "Metro" may be a misnomer since what is envisaged is really a
longer-distance commuter service, maybe every half-hour rather than
every 10 minutes, but still clockface-timetabled and a 'walk-up, buy a
ticket and hop on' service.
But whatever you want to call it, the TransManche Metro seems to be a
service that logically *ought* to exist. On the face of it, it seems
crazy that we can travel by train between London and Paris, but not
between Ashford and Calais. It seems just as crazy that Kent residents
can hop on a high-speed train to London, but not one going in the
other direction. Ditto for Calais residents who can travel quickly to
Paris by train but not to Kent or London. The two reasons why it's not

It might make sense for a few existing Eurostar services to call at both
Ashford & Frethun (for Calais) at times convenient for workers, but I
don't think there will ever be a demand for a dedicated "Metro" type of
service. Neither Calais (population about 125,000) or Boulogne (44,000)
are large enough to produce sufficient regular demand for such a service.

Bevan

[Alex Macfie]

Post by Bevan Price
It might make sense for a few existing Eurostar services to call at both
Ashford & Frethun (for Calais) at times convenient for workers,

This is most unlikely to happen, as Eurostar has never been interested
in providing any sort of commuter service (and besides, no-one is
going to pay ~£160 for a train trip between Calais and Ashford, or as
a daily commuter fare). If an cross-channel inter-regional passenger
train service does emerge, it will not be run by Eurostar; of that I
am certain.

Post by Bevan Price
but I
don't think there will ever be a demand for a dedicated "Metro" type of
service. Neither Calais (population about 125,000) or Boulogne (44,000)
are large enough to produce sufficient regular demand for such a service.

Swindon (population ~155,400) and Didcot (22,700) have a 2-3tph
service between them in each direction throughout the day, and more
during peak times. Swindon from/to London has a daytime service of
4tph or better.

Ashford has a population of 112,000. So the populations are actually
about right for providing a regular clockface-timetabled train
service. And remember that the service wouldn't just be used by people
in the towns themselves, but in the regions as a whole, with people
connecting via local services or rail-heading; making direct cross-
channel inter-regional train travel (avoiding one or more of the
capital cities) much easier than at present. And this would benefit a
lot more than just the towns in which the cross-channel trains stop.
Also the proposal is to run between Lille Europe and St Pancras, not
just between Calais and Ashford. So it could be used for commuting to
London from Pas-de-Calais as well. It could even be used as a slower-
but-cheaper alternative to Eurostar for people travelling between
London and Paris.

Alex


Alex

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Alex Macfie

Post by Bevan Price
It might make sense for a few existing Eurostar services to call at both
Ashford& Frethun (for Calais) at times convenient for workers,

This is most unlikely to happen, as Eurostar has never been interested
in providing any sort of commuter service (and besides, no-one is
going to pay ~£160 for a train trip between Calais and Ashford, or as
a daily commuter fare). If an cross-channel inter-regional passenger
train service does emerge, it will not be run by Eurostar; of that I
a

Coming back from Brussels on Saturday a couple got on at Frethun and got
off at Ebbsfleet. Apparently they would have preferred Ashford.

[Paul Rigg]

I think the problem is the difference in the way the tunnel is perceived by
different groups of people,


To most people the tunnel is a 30 mile (approx) piece of railway. The fare
to travel through it should be the same as any other 30 mile train trip.
Perhaps you could compare it with Liverpool to Manchester which costs around
£17 single.

To the Daily Mail reader it is a risky international boundary through which
scroungers may find the way into our green and pleasant land. They want to
minimise access.

To Eurostar it is something they wish to restrict access to so that they
can keep the prices high. Of course it's not something new. They ferry
companies did it before the tunnel was completed. It has long been regarded
as the most expensive piece of water to cross in the world,

The health and safety requirements seem very onerous considering that I
understand that a longer tunnel in the Swiss Alps has much less onerous
requirements. This also helps to keep the prices high by restricting
access. The couple of fires on HGV transports have helped this a lot.

At present the interests of the last 4 group are running the show. So it's
not going to happen.



.

[Alex Macfie]

To Eurostar  it is something they wish to restrict access to so that they
can keep the prices high.

Eurostar does not control access to the Channel Tunnel (and if it did,
then that would be against EU open-access rules). Eurotunnel does, and
its interest is in maximising revenue from access charges. So the
Chunnel is open to everyone, like the Ritz Hotel.

Otherwise, you're probably right ;(

[amogles]

Post by Alex Macfie
Eurostar does not control access to the Channel Tunnel (and if it did,
then that would be against EU open-access rules). Eurotunnel does, and
its interest is in maximising revenue from access charges. So the
Chunnel is open to everyone, like the Ritz Hotel.
Otherwise, you're probably right ;(

Do EU open-acces rules also apply to privately owned and financed
railway lines?

What would prevent a competitor from setting up their own car-carrying
shuttle service to comepete with that of Euro Tunnel while demanding
not only access to the tunnel but also to Eurostar's loading yards?

What sets Eurotunnel aside (in a legal sense) from, say, the Severn
Valley railway?

[Paul Rigg]

What sets Eurotunnel aside (in a legal sense) from, say, the Severn
Valley railway?


AFAIK it is the subject of an international treaty. Half of it is in France
too (unlike the SVR) and the French don't like other operators.


I did not say that Eurostar can restrict access. What I said was that it
was in Eurostar's interest that access was restricted.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by amogles

Post by Alex Macfie
Eurostar does not control access to the Channel Tunnel (and if it did,
then that would be against EU open-access rules). Eurotunnel does, and
its interest is in maximising revenue from access charges. So the
Chunnel is open to everyone, like the Ritz Hotel.
Otherwise, you're probably right ;(

Do EU open-acces rules also apply to privately owned and financed
railway lines?

Like Railtrack, as was?

Post by amogles
What would prevent a competitor from setting up their own car-carrying
shuttle service to comepete with that of Euro Tunnel

Someone applied to do that with the DB shuttle on the causeway to Sylt.
Did it ever happen?

Post by amogles
while demanding
not only access to the tunnel but also to Eurostar's

Eurotunnel

Post by amogles
loading yards?
What sets Eurotunnel aside (in a legal sense) from, say, the Severn
Valley railway?

Being part of some kind of officially designated European network?

It was reported that there was a problem when DB tried to displose of
its last narrow gauge steam lines around 10 years ago, and someone
spotted those were legally no different to any other part of the network.

Clarifying the rules governing things like freight yards is part of the
revision of the European directives which is under way, as various
Continental railways have not been playing nice with open access operators.

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Arthur Figgis
It was reported that there was a problem when DB tried to displose of
its last narrow gauge steam lines around 10 years ago, and someone
spotted those were legally no different to any other part of the network.

I thought that certain smaller railroads were not subject to EU open
access laws, and I find it surprising that this would be the case with a
narrow-gauge steam line.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Arthur Figgis
It was reported that there was a problem when DB tried to displose of
its last narrow gauge steam lines around 10 years ago, and someone
spotted those were legally no different to any other part of the network.

I thought that certain smaller railroads were not subject to EU open
access laws, and I find it surprising that this would be the case with a
narrow-gauge steam line.

But DB is not exactly a small railroad. It wasn't a narrow gauge steam
line as such, it was a full part of the national railway rail network -
which just happened to have some unusual features in the track and
traction department.

Some time ago I found myself at a law firm's drinks party talking to
some railway specialists, who said the NYMR's Whitby service has found
itself as a bit of a test bed for various dark corners of railway
legislation, as they are pioneering with kettles concepts designed with
main line trains in mind.

[amogles]

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
I thought that certain smaller railroads were not subject to EU open
access laws, and I find it surprising that this would be the case with a
narrow-gauge steam line.

But DB is not exactly a small railroad. It wasn't a narrow gauge steam
line as such, it was a full part of the national railway rail network -
which just happened to have some unusual features in the track and
traction department.

The Weisseritztalbahn was partially destroyed by floods more than 10
years ago and DB are still dragging their feet over repairing it. The
line has not officially closed, however, and therefore the local group
who are seeking to rebuild it and operate it as a tourist line are not
allowed access to the tracks without going through the DB burocracy
first. The ridiculous situation is that they ae now considering
building a deviation so as to be able to own and control their own
tracks.

[amogles]

Post by Arthur Figgis
Being part of some kind of officially designated European network?

So if that is the criterium, then the EU can decide to which lines its
rules apply?
It could therefore theoretically at some point consider that the SVR
is also part of a designated European network?
Or what is so different between say the Windermere branch and the
Bluebell Railway? And why should that be a basis of treating access
demands differently?

[Peter Campbell Smith]

Post by amogles
Do EU open-acces rules also apply to privately owned and financed
railway lines?
What would prevent a competitor from setting up their own car-carrying
shuttle service to comepete with that of Euro Tunnel while demanding
not only access to the tunnel but also to Eurostar's loading yards?
What sets Eurotunnel aside (in a legal sense) from, say, the Severn
Valley railway?

Is it not the fact that the Channel Tunnel belongs to the governments of
France and the UK - ie it is a publicly-owned asset. Eurotunnel merely has
a concession to operate it: they don't own it.


Peter

[Bruce]

Post by Peter Campbell Smith

Post by amogles
Do EU open-acces rules also apply to privately owned and financed
railway lines?
What would prevent a competitor from setting up their own car-carrying
shuttle service to comepete with that of Euro Tunnel while demanding
not only access to the tunnel but also to Eurostar's loading yards?
What sets Eurotunnel aside (in a legal sense) from, say, the Severn
Valley railway?

Is it not the fact that the Channel Tunnel belongs to the governments of
France and the UK - ie it is a publicly-owned asset. Eurotunnel merely has
a concession to operate it: they don't own it.

I think you will find that Eurotunnel is the legal owner until the
concession expires. Only then will the governments gain ownership.

[Graham Murray]

Post by Paul Rigg
To Eurostar it is something they wish to restrict access to so that
they can keep the prices high. Of course it's not something new.
They ferry companies did it before the tunnel was completed. It has
long been regarded as the most expensive piece of water to cross in
the world,

I thought that the crossing between Portsmouth and Gosport had the
distinction of having the highest cost per mile.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Graham Murray

Post by Paul Rigg
To Eurostar it is something they wish to restrict access to so that
they can keep the prices high. Of course it's not something new.
They ferry companies did it before the tunnel was completed. It has
long been regarded as the most expensive piece of water to cross in
the world,

I thought that the crossing between Portsmouth and Gosport had the
distinction of having the highest cost per mile.

Southampton - Cowes is also reputed to be the most expensive.

[Ian]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Graham Murray

Post by Paul Rigg
To Eurostar it is something they wish to restrict access to so that
they can keep the prices high. Of course it's not something new.
They ferry companies did it before the tunnel was completed. It has
long been regarded as the most expensive piece of water to cross in
the world,

I thought that the crossing between Portsmouth and Gosport had the
distinction of having the highest cost per mile.

Southampton - Cowes is also reputed to be the most expensive.

Both operators are vying for that dubious honour....

[Roland Perry]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Graham Murray

Post by Paul Rigg
To Eurostar it is something they wish to restrict access to so that
they can keep the prices high. Of course it's not something new.
They ferry companies did it before the tunnel was completed. It has
long been regarded as the most expensive piece of water to cross in
the world,

I thought that the crossing between Portsmouth and Gosport had the
distinction of having the highest cost per mile.

Southampton - Cowes is also reputed to be the most expensive.

As ever, it's probably down to defining what "piece of water" means.
Weren't the Skye ferries rather expensive? No doubt we could find a
river ferry somewhere that's eye-wateringly expensive on a per-mile
basis.

obRail: crossing the water between Venice's Station and the City is
apparently pretty expensive.

[Peter Campbell Smith]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Graham Murray

Post by Paul Rigg
To Eurostar it is something they wish to restrict access to so that
they can keep the prices high. Of course it's not something new.
They ferry companies did it before the tunnel was completed. It has
long been regarded as the most expensive piece of water to cross in
the world,

I thought that the crossing between Portsmouth and Gosport had the
distinction of having the highest cost per mile.

Southampton - Cowes is also reputed to be the most expensive.

As ever, it's probably down to defining what "piece of water" means.
Weren't the Skye ferries rather expensive? No doubt we could find a
river ferry somewhere that's eye-wateringly expensive on a per-mile
basis.
obRail: crossing the water between Venice's Station and the City is
apparently pretty expensive.

Could the Emirates Air Link compete for this prize?

Peter

[Roland Perry]

Post by Peter Campbell Smith

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Graham Murray

Post by Paul Rigg
To Eurostar it is something they wish to restrict access to so that
they can keep the prices high. Of course it's not something new.
They ferry companies did it before the tunnel was completed. It has
long been regarded as the most expensive piece of water to cross in
the world,

I thought that the crossing between Portsmouth and Gosport had the
distinction of having the highest cost per mile.

Southampton - Cowes is also reputed to be the most expensive.

As ever, it's probably down to defining what "piece of water" means.
Weren't the Skye ferries rather expensive? No doubt we could find a
river ferry somewhere that's eye-wateringly expensive on a per-mile
basis.
obRail: crossing the water between Venice's Station and the City is
apparently pretty expensive.

Could the Emirates Air Link compete for this prize?

I'm not sure what that is.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Campbell Smith
Could the Emirates Air Link compete for this prize?

I'm not sure what that is.

A cable car across the Thames, that on my current understanding will
make the disgraceful move of putting a corporate name on the Tube map.

Neil

[Peter Campbell Smith]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Campbell Smith
Could the Emirates Air Link compete for this prize?

I'm not sure what that is.

A cable car across the Thames, that on my current understanding will
make the disgraceful move of putting a corporate name on the Tube map.

I think he is referring to my misnaming the Emirates Air Line.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Andy Elms

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Campbell Smith
Could the Emirates Air Link compete for this prize?

I'm not sure what that is.

A cable car across the Thames, that on my current understanding will
make the disgraceful move of putting a corporate name on the Tube map.

I think he

Who, me?

Post by Andy Elms
is referring to my misnaming the Emirates Air Line.

Sounds like something for inflating your car tyres. And no, I've not
heard of that either. Is it a play on "Emirates Airline"?

Now that we've worked out what it is, I see they say it's the first
"urban" [my emphasis] cable car system of its kind in the UK. It looks a
bit like the one across the valley at Alton Towers.

But if it's really opening in the summer, they must have started
building it by now??

[Peter Campbell Smith]

Post by Roland Perry
Now that we've worked out what it is, I see they say it's the first
"urban" [my emphasis] cable car system of its kind in the UK. It looks a
bit like the one across the valley at Alton Towers.
But if it's really opening in the summer, they must have started
building it by now??

They have - see <http://www.flickr.com/photos/gary8345/6599089919/> for
example.

Peter

[Andy Elms]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Campbell Smith
Could the Emirates Air Link compete for this prize?

I'm not sure what that is.

A cable car across the Thames, that on my current understanding will
make the disgraceful move of putting a corporate name on the Tube map.

Does "Arsenal" (Piccadilly Line) not count as a corporate name?

AE

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:06:40 -0800 (PST), Andy Elms put finger to keyboard

Post by Andy Elms

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Campbell Smith
Could the Emirates Air Link compete for this prize?

I'm not sure what that is.

A cable car across the Thames, that on my current understanding will
make the disgraceful move of putting a corporate name on the Tube map.

Does "Arsenal" (Piccadilly Line) not count as a corporate name?

And, arguably, "Bank". It doesn't explicitly identify a particular
organisation, but we all know which one it means. "Kensington (Olympia)"
has a corporate name in brackets, and the DLR has "Custom House for ExCeL"
which includes a corporate name, "London City Airport" which is a corporate
name and "Cutty Sark" which is hard to label as anything other thana
corporate name. A lot of the DLR stations are simply old corporate names
anyway: "Royal Albert", "Royal Victoria", "Heron Quays" and "Canary Wharf"
are the names given by the former dockyard operators. So it isn't really
unprecedented, by any means.

Mark

[Neil Williams]

Post by Mark Goodge
And, arguably, "Bank". It doesn't explicitly identify a particular
organisation, but we all know which one it means.

Hardly a corporate entity.

Post by Mark Goodge
"Kensington (Olympia)"
has a corporate name in brackets, and the DLR has "Custom House for ExCeL"
which includes a corporate name, "London City Airport" which is a corporate
name and "Cutty Sark" which is hard to label as anything other thana
corporate name. A lot of the DLR stations are simply old corporate names
anyway: "Royal Albert", "Royal Victoria", "Heron Quays" and "Canary Wharf"
are the names given by the former dockyard operators. So it isn't really
unprecedented, by any means.

It is, because the location it is at bears no relevance whatsoever to
the name.

Emirates fly from LHR, which is nowhere near it.

Neil

[amogles]

Post by Mark Goodge
And, arguably, "Bank". It doesn't explicitly identify a particular
organisation, but we all know which one it means. "Kensington (Olympia)"
has a corporate name in brackets, and the DLR has "Custom House for ExCeL"
which includes a corporate name, "London City Airport" which is a corporate
name and "Cutty Sark" which is hard to label as anything other thana
corporate name. A lot of the DLR stations are simply old corporate names
anyway: "Royal Albert", "Royal Victoria", "Heron Quays" and "Canary Wharf"
are the names given by the former dockyard operators. So it isn't really
unprecedented, by any means.

I'm surprised trademark owners go along with that (and even pay for
it). Surely applying trademarks to geographical entities waters down
the owner's exclusive rights to that name. When I visited Houston I
discovered there was a Toyota district, apparently named after a
Toyota Stadium of sort. What would prevent somebody from opening a
Toyota chippie in that district or the Toyota pub, or even the Toyota
District Subaru Dealership?

[Roland Perry]

In message <***@news.markshouse.net>, at
15:44:21 on Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Mark Goodge

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Andy Elms
Does "Arsenal" (Piccadilly Line) not count as a corporate name?

And, arguably, "Bank". It doesn't explicitly identify a particular
organisation, but we all know which one it means. "Kensington (Olympia)"
has a corporate name in brackets, and the DLR has "Custom House for ExCeL"
which includes a corporate name, "London City Airport" which is a corporate
name and "Cutty Sark" which is hard to label as anything other thana
corporate name. A lot of the DLR stations are simply old corporate names
anyway: "Royal Albert", "Royal Victoria", "Heron Quays" and "Canary Wharf"
are the names given by the former dockyard operators. So it isn't really
unprecedented, by any means.

Then there's "St Pauls", which was previously "Post Office", which is
now a corporation, but may not have been before the renaming.

And perhaps "City" Thameslink, named after the Corporation of London?

Is Denham Golf Club a corporation, and was White City or Crystal Palace?
What about the Oval, Kew Gardens, Temple, Swiss Cottage (a pub),
Woolwich Arsenal and Kempton Park?

[Neil Williams]

Post by Andy Elms
Does "Arsenal" (Piccadilly Line) not count as a corporate name?

Did it originate from the name of the football club, or vice versa?

Neil

[Peter Masson]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Andy Elms
Does "Arsenal" (Piccadilly Line) not count as a corporate name?

Did it originate from the name of the football club, or vice versa?

The football club started off as the Woolwich Arsenal works team. It moved
to Highbury in 1913, and in 1932 persuaded London Electric Railways (the
Underground Group) to change the name of the station from Gillespie Road to
Arsenal (originally Arsenal (Highbury Hill), but the Highbury Hill was
dropped later). It is not the most convenient station for the current
Emirates ground.

Peter

[d***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Graham Murray

Post by Paul Rigg
To Eurostar it is something they wish to restrict access to so that
they can keep the prices high. Of course it's not something new.
They ferry companies did it before the tunnel was completed. It has
long been regarded as the most expensive piece of water to cross in
the world,

I thought that the crossing between Portsmouth and Gosport had the
distinction of having the highest cost per mile.

Southampton - Cowes is also reputed to be the most expensive.

As ever, it's probably down to defining what "piece of water" means.
Weren't the Skye ferries rather expensive? No doubt we could find a
river ferry somewhere that's eye-wateringly expensive on a per-mile
basis.
obRail: crossing the water between Venice's Station and the City is
apparently pretty expensive.

Which station ? Venice Santa Lucia terminius is actually in the City
so you don't actaully have to cross water to reach the city as you are
already in it when you get off the train .
Venice Mestre is on the mainland at the other end of the
causeway/bridge but I don't recall the fare between the two being that
expensive.

G.Harman

[Roland Perry]

Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Roland Perry
obRail: crossing the water between Venice's Station and the City is
apparently pretty expensive.

Which station ? Venice Santa Lucia terminius is actually in the City
so you don't actaully have to cross water to reach the city as you are
already in it when you get off the train .
Venice Mestre is on the mainland at the other end of the
causeway/bridge but I don't recall the fare between the two being that
expensive.

I may be conflating it with a water taxi from the airport to the city,
which is apparently ~$100 for about three miles.

[bob]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Graham Murray

To Eurostar  it is something they wish to restrict access to so that
they can keep the prices high.  Of course it's not something new.
They ferry companies did it before the tunnel was completed.  It has
long been regarded as the most expensive piece of water to cross in
the world,

I thought that the crossing between Portsmouth and Gosport had the
distinction of having the highest cost per mile.

Southampton - Cowes is also reputed to be the most expensive.

As these ferries travel the length of Southampton Water, I'd have
guessed that one of the other Solent routes is more expensive per
mile, perhaps the Southsea to Ryde beach hovercraft or Lymington to
Yarmouth ferry.

Robin

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Graham Murray

Post by Paul Rigg
To Eurostar it is something they wish to restrict access to so that
they can keep the prices high. Of course it's not something new.
They ferry companies did it before the tunnel was completed. It has
long been regarded as the most expensive piece of water to cross in
the world,

I thought that the crossing between Portsmouth and Gosport had the
distinction of having the highest cost per mile.

Gosport seems to be GBP2.70 return - but how far is it?
Twickenham to Ham is GBP1 for what Wikipedia says is 0.12 km.

[Bruce]

Post by Graham Murray

Post by Paul Rigg
To Eurostar it is something they wish to restrict access to so that
they can keep the prices high. Of course it's not something new.
They ferry companies did it before the tunnel was completed. It has
long been regarded as the most expensive piece of water to cross in
the world,

I thought that the crossing between Portsmouth and Gosport had the
distinction of having the highest cost per mile.

Yesterday I paid 40p to drive my car across the fairly short bridge
over the Thames at Pangbourne, Berkshire.

I bet that rates fairly high in terms of cost per mile.

It is also a very short car. ;-)

[amogles]

Post by Bevan Price
The title "Metro" implies a high frequency service (at least every 10 to
15 minutes), with high passenger loadings for much of the day. So -

Not necessarily.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s the train service between Strasbourg
and Offenburg was marked by SNCF as Metro Rhin. They claimed it to be
an hourly shuttle service but a look at the timetables revealed there
were plenty of exceptions so that on an average day you might have to
wait longer than that. High passenger loadings didn't aply either, as
it was mostly worked by 2-car DMUs and they were mostly empty.

[Lüko Willms]

Post by amogles

Post by Bevan Price
The title "Metro" implies a high frequency service (at least every 10 to

Post by Bevan Price
15 minutes), with high passenger loadings for much of the day. So -

Not necessarily.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s the train service between Strasbourg
and Offenburg was marked by SNCF as Metro Rhin.

That connection is operated by OSB which stands for "Ortenau S-Bahn".
So the French translated "S-Bahn" to "metro".

OSB is a subsidiary of SWEG, short for "Südwestdeutsche
Aktienverkehrsgesellschaft" whose only shareholder is the Bundesland
Baden-Württemberg.

Most people in Germany would call that a "private railway" which is
mostly meant as not being in possession of the federal republic.



Cheers,
L.W.

[Neil Williams]

   That connection is operated by OSB which stands for "Ortenau S-Bahn".
So the French translated "S-Bahn" to "metro".

It isn't the only place where low frequency regional trains are often
called S-Bahnen. They do that in Switzerland as well.

Neil

[Lüko Willms]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Lüko Willms
That connection is operated by OSB which stands for "Ortenau S-Bahn".

Post by Lüko Willms
So the French translated "S-Bahn" to "metro".

It isn't the only place where low frequency regional trains are often
called S-Bahnen. They do that in Switzerland as well.

Another subsidiary of SWEG

Post by Neil Williams
<http://www.sweg.de/html/wir_ueber_uns978.htm>
<http://www.breisgau-s-bahn.de/>

Around Freiburg in Breisgau.


Cheers,
L.W.

[Lüko Willms]

Post by amogles
In the late 1980s and early 1990s the train service between Strasbourg
and Offenburg was marked by SNCF as Metro Rhin.
<http://www.sweg.de/html/wir_ueber_uns978.html>

Cheers,
L.W.

[Mizter T]

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
After the delivery of the new Thameslink rolling stock, could a fleet
of cascaded class 319 EMUs become dedicated for the TransManche Metro
between Kent and Nord-pas-de-Calais?

The 'TransManche Metro' is but a rather vague aspiration (if not dream),
it's little if anything more solid than that.

Whilst one could suggest it'd might be a bit more solid if one could rustle
up some (cheap) rolling stock for it, I doubt the class 319 units would pass
muster in terms of the safety (specifically fire) requirements, even if
modified. Plus, the 319s are already committed for use elsewhere once
they've been released from their Thameslink duties.

[Pat O'Neill]

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
After the delivery of the new Thameslink rolling stock, could a fleet
of cascaded class 319 EMUs become dedicated for the TransManche Metro
between Kent and Nord-pas-de-Calais?
I understand that the ceremonial workings through the Channel Tunnel
after competition with 319008/009 in 1993 were modified with extended
pantographs to meet the Eurotunnel catenary height and also worked
under possession due to not being equipped with TVM430.
Pros;
- dual voltage between former SR 750V DC third rail and 25kv AC
overhead catenary, so can operate on classic lines in GB and thus not
confined to HS1. In regards to the pantograph height differential as
per the ceremonial 319s - if the trains would operate predominately in
Kent only with the 25kv AC option being used excelusively for the
Channel Tunnel and France, the pantograph could be fixed to ET cantery
height with no regard to the GB height, I don't know how this would
compare with French catenary height.
- retention toilets, so they won't crap all over the Tunnel.
- frontal cab evacuation doors.
Cons;
- no TVM430 or KVB.
- no fire doors, however they could probably be retrofitted by the
removal of the existing the hinged doors with sliding doors, as per
the Railcare 317/7 refurbishment for the Stansted Express (http://
www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb/...d_Express5.jpg).
- platform height differential between GB/F/ET standards.
- no pressure sealing, 319s have hopper windows - so there would
possibly be some clashes with atmospherics when inside the CT.
All of these technicalities can also be applied to the 375/377 fleet
if they were ever to be proposed for use, too.

I seem to recall they poked their nose into the tunnel not sure that the ran
through the tunnel. Not suitable.

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Pat O'Neill

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
After the delivery of the new Thameslink rolling stock, could a fleet
of cascaded class 319 EMUs become dedicated for the TransManche Metro
between Kent and Nord-pas-de-Calais?
I understand that the ceremonial workings through the Channel Tunnel
after competition with 319008/009 in 1993 were modified with extended
pantographs to meet the Eurotunnel catenary height and also worked
under possession due to not being equipped with TVM430.
Pros;
- dual voltage between former SR 750V DC third rail and 25kv AC
overhead catenary, so can operate on classic lines in GB and thus not
confined to HS1. In regards to the pantograph height differential as
per the ceremonial 319s - if the trains would operate predominately in
Kent only with the 25kv AC option being used excelusively for the
Channel Tunnel and France, the pantograph could be fixed to ET cantery
height with no regard to the GB height, I don't know how this would
compare with French catenary height.
- retention toilets, so they won't crap all over the Tunnel.
- frontal cab evacuation doors.
Cons;
- no TVM430 or KVB.
- no fire doors, however they could probably be retrofitted by the
removal of the existing the hinged doors with sliding doors, as per
the Railcare 317/7 refurbishment for the Stansted Express (http://
www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb/...d_Express5.jpg).
- platform height differential between GB/F/ET standards.
- no pressure sealing, 319s have hopper windows - so there would
possibly be some clashes with atmospherics when inside the CT.
All of these technicalities can also be applied to the 375/377 fleet
if they were ever to be proposed for use, too.

I seem to recall they poked their nose into the tunnel not sure that the
ran through the tunnel. Not suitable.

Would French EMU-class equipment perhaps be more appropriate? Would they
have similar cab-signal technology, rather than having to modify any UK
stock?

[amogles]

Post by Pat O'Neill
I seem to recall they poked their nose into the tunnel not sure that the ran
through the tunnel. Not suitable.

ah, wrong kind of tunnel.

[bob]

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
After the delivery of the new Thameslink rolling stock, could a fleet
of cascaded class 319 EMUs become dedicated for the TransManche Metro
between Kent and Nord-pas-de-Calais?

Given the current plans for the GWML and North West, are any of the
319 fleet not currently spoken for?

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
I understand that the ceremonial workings through the Channel Tunnel
after competition with 319008/009 in 1993 were modified with extended
pantographs to meet the Eurotunnel catenary height and also worked
under possession due to not being equipped with TVM430.

In 1993, the 319 and 313 were the only dual voltage stock available.
Today just about everything is either dual voltage or very easily
converted to dual voltage (the advent of VVVF 3 phase drive means that
all 25 kV stock has a ~750 V DC link between the transformer/rectifier
and the power electronics into which the third rail can easily feed.

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
Pros;
- dual voltage between former SR 750V DC third rail and 25kv AC
overhead catenary, so can operate on classic lines in GB and thus not
confined to HS1. In regards to the pantograph height differential as
per the ceremonial 319s - if the trains would operate predominately in
Kent only with the 25kv AC option being used excelusively for the
Channel Tunnel and France, the pantograph could be fixed to ET cantery
height with no regard to the GB height, I don't know how this would
compare with French catenary height.
- retention toilets, so they won't crap all over the Tunnel.
- frontal cab evacuation doors.

While it is true that the 319s possess all of these features, they are
in no sense unique in these characteristics, with many Electrostars in
dual voltage service and desiros working in both 3rd rail and 25 kV
mode which can easily be made dual voltage, and of course the 395
stock, which has the added benefit of already having TVM430 installed.

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
Cons;
- no TVM430 or KVB.
- no fire doors, however they could probably be retrofitted by the
removal of the existing the hinged doors with sliding doors, as per
the Railcare 317/7 refurbishment for the Stansted Express (Loading Image...).
- platform height differential between GB/F/ET standards.
- no pressure sealing, 319s have hopper windows - so there would
possibly be some clashes with atmospherics when inside the CT.
All of these technicalities can also be applied to the 375/377 fleet
if they were ever to be proposed for use, too.

The other con that you haven't included is that the entire 319 fleet
is in service on other routes and is allocated to other services for
the rest of their service life. The production lines for both
electrostars and desiros are still open, and both possess all of the
pros and cons of the 319s, so new builds can be ordered for these
services.

Robin

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
After the delivery of the new Thameslink rolling stock, could a fleet
of cascaded class 319 EMUs become dedicated for the TransManche Metro
between Kent and Nord-pas-de-Calais?

Not within the terms of the current legal frameworks governing the
carriage of fare paying members of the public through the Channel Tunnel.

French steam locos would be out, too.

[Star Fury]

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
After the delivery of the new Thameslink rolling stock, could a fleet
of cascaded class 319 EMUs become dedicated for the TransManche Metro
between Kent and Nord-pas-de-Calais?

Not within the terms of the current legal frameworks governing the
carriage of fare paying members of the public through the Channel Tunnel.
French steam locos would be out, too.

Are there any models of French rolling stock that might be appropriate?
(If one were to assume there were the demand and legal / safety /
immigration framework to operate).

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Star Fury

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
After the delivery of the new Thameslink rolling stock, could a fleet
of cascaded class 319 EMUs become dedicated for the TransManche Metro
between Kent and Nord-pas-de-Calais?

Not within the terms of the current legal frameworks governing the
carriage of fare paying members of the public through the Channel Tunnel.
French steam locos would be out, too.

Are there any models of French rolling stock that might be appropriate?
(If one were to assume there were the demand and legal / safety /
immigration framework to operate).

The NoL Eurostars?